FEC Lawyers Back Socialist Workers Party (SWP EXEMPT from reporting req. of political parties)

Newsday.com ^ | March 31, 2003 | SHARON THEIMER

[FairOpinion]

WASHINGTON -- The Socialist Workers Party, long allowed to keep its donors secret because of the danger of harassment, should continue to receive the special protection, Federal Election Commission lawyers say.

The party asked the commission to extend its exemption from FEC reporting requirements that other political parties face, including identifying its contributors, the candidates it supports and the businesses it buys from. The exemption, given for six years at a time, was first granted by a court in 1979 and last renewed by the commission in 1996.

The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government.

[MonroeDNA]

Communists getting special legal protection here in the US.

Can you light up your ping list?

[mark beoluke]

They just want a piece of the world.... I mean world peace!

(the idiot anarco-commies, who do they think they are, Democrats?)

[Rensselaer]

Note again that this is something the Socialist Workers have won in court -twice!. I suppose the FEC could refuse to renew it, but it just means they'd get sued again.

Personally, I hope they get it. I believe that every American should have the right to make anonymous political contributions. Look at FREEP - we work to FREEP polls, organize rallies, etc., and most of us, like me, are doing it all anonymously. Why should giving money be any different? The Federalist papers were published anonymously. Nobody knows who contributed to Abe Lincoln or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. Congress should change the law so that everybody has these rights.

Meanwhile, if we have to start with the socialists, so be it, and blame the courts which have granted only them this exemption in the past, and congress which keeps the law for everyone else, rather than the FEC, which is just doing what the law and courts require. In the meantime, maybe some other group should ask for the same treatment - why not Republicans in Ithaca, or the Libertarian Party, or pro-life groups that often face harassment? I get so tired of the knee-jerk ranting on these pages (well, maybe not too tired - I keep reading and posting.) Maybe we can use this instead of fuming about it.

[MonroeDNA]

Light up the phone lines.

[MeekOneGOP]

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[farmfriend]

The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government.

Heavens no, we don't want to know who the people are who want to overthough the government, do we? After all, if we knew who they were, homeland security might go after them.

[FairOpinion]

"Personally, I hope they get it. I believe that every American should have the right to make anonymous political contributions."

-----

The point here is that the commies are getting an exception from the rules, which apply to everyone else, but not them.

If you want to lobby for an election reform for ALL parties, that's fine, but obviously this is preferential treatment for one party, one, which advocates overthrow of the US government by force.

They had this exemption since 1979 and it obviously didn't carry threw to other parties, as you seem to say that this is a "start". Maybe the next thing will be Al Qaeda in the US registering as a political party and getting the same benefits.

This is just "commie protection" as a special group, which is outrageous.

[FairOpinion]

I think we should also write to the news media, conservtive radio shows, Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly, asking them to cover it. It is falling through the cracks, and it shouldn't. (I wrote to H&C & O'Reilly, but they may easily overlook one letter)

And we don't have a lot of time, the FEC will vote this Thursday, April 3, in 3 days!

We have two days to let people know and prevent this.

[Kay Ludlow]

Thanks for posting this. So people in other parties are subject to public exposure for who they support, but those advocating overthrow of our freely elected government aren't?

I can't believe that FEC lawyers, paid for with my taxes, are agreeing with them! They should at least have to pay for their own lawyers to argue their side.

This really explains to me why I've seen the socialist party involved in many things that surprised me, especially the last fifteen years. Since donors don't have to be made public, they are probably rolling in $$$ from Hollywood and foundations. I know they are heavily involved in the environmental movement, pushing all those draconian regulations that are designed to change our way of life. Not to mention their sponsorship of those protests that just happen to turn violent...

I forwarded this article to my US Representatives office, asking why we have to pay for the lawyers to argue their case.

[nicmarlo]

Frightening!!

[Rensselaer]

YOUR COMMENT:

The point here is that the commies are getting an exception from the rules, which apply to everyone else,
but not them.

If you want to lobby for an election reform for ALL parties, that's fine, but obviously this is preferential
treatment for one party, one, which advocates overthrow of the US government by force.

They had this exemption since 1979 and it obviously didn't carry threw to other parties, as you seem to
say that this is a "start".

---

But you folks are missing the point. Your anger is misdirected. You blame the FEC, which 1) must apply the law to everyone else, because Congress passed it; and 2) must (probably) exempt the Socialist Workers, because the Socialists have twice won the exemption by suing the FEC in federal court.

I *DO* want to argue that ALL parties should be exempted. And your point that it "didn't carry through to other parties" is silly - have other parties ever asked for the exemption? (answer, to my knowledge, is "no.") Under the court decisions - one of which is from the SCOTUS [Brown vs. Socialist Workers 1974 Campaign Committee], would other parties be entitled to it (answer is definitely "no," BTW).

Rather than scream at the FEC, you should be screaming at Congress - why do we have this law? Why, if it violates the rights of the Socialists, does it not violate our rights?

Focus, people, focus.

[Rensselaer]

"I can't believe that FEC lawyers, paid for with my taxes, are agreeing with them! They should at least
have to pay for their own lawyers to argue their side. "

----

The Socialists do have to pay for Socialist lawyers to argue their side. The FEC then has to decide whether or not they are entitled, as a matter of law, following Supreme Court and lower court decisions, to the exemption. The FEC lawyers are merely recommending to the Commission that "yes, they are entitled to this exemption under the relevant court decisions." This is no different than if you filed a complaint with the FEC and asked them to rule on it. The FEC's lawyers would evaluate the complaint and make a recommendation to the Commission, based on the law.

[FairOpinion]

But the point is still valid, what is the matter with the FEC lawyers, promoting this preposterous action of exempting the communists from laws all other political parties have to abide by.

[Rensselaer]

But the point is still valid, what is the matter with the FEC lawyers, promoting this preposterous action of exempting the communists from laws all other political parties have to abide by.

No, it's really not valid. As I noted in other posts on this thread, they are following clear precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Take your complaint to the Supremes, or even better, keep your anger focused - take your complaint to Congress, and ask them why anyone should have to file these reports, especially given that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to require the Socialist Workers Party to file them.

[Kay Ludlow]

Rather than scream at the FEC, you should be screaming at Congress - why do we have this law?

I wrote to my legislators about it - today.